Ready-to-lay OO Track and Pointwork - moving towards production

[Godders]

How assembly is done has a major bearing on costs and therefore selling price. It can't be ignored even at this stage.

 

There are very sound commercial reasons to prefer BH to FB but from a production viewpoint FB is probably easier and cheaper to achieve.

 

I am interested by your suggestion of a rust-coloured rail. That would have to be achieved by coating all the rail with the end-user then cleaning off the top with a track rubber or similar. Obviously there would be some additional cost but probably not major when considering the greater realism that it would achieve.

 

At the moment Joseph nothing has a bearing on costs because we don't know what we want.

 

We first of all have to establish what we want then we can worry about how to make it.

 

The most likely scenario is that an existing track maker will make it and they probably won't need our assistance in production techniques.

 

There are a limited number of ways that rails and mouldings can be combined and unless some one can come up with a revolutionary way of doing it at zero cost it won't change.

 

I would be interested in hearing why, "FB is probably easier and cheaper to achieve".

 

One major advantage of BH over FB is the amount of metal, therefore the cost, is less and the profit more viable. 

 

Cheers Godders

[sub39h]

You make a fair point about transition curves. In regards to straight sections why could they not be cut to appropriate lengths? All it would take is for there to be, say, metre lengths of straight track similar to current flex track offerings that allow straight track to be laid easily. The track can be cut to length to suit like flex track is.

 

I would like to point out I am by no means advocating a sort of fixed geometry like Hornby's track system. All I'm suggesting is that for there to be a few pieces of fixed shape to aid layout design. I feel this would add to the potential market. If this thread has demonstrated nothing else it has demonstrated that a new track system will have to be a compromise, albeit a better compromise than we have at present.

 

I feel that my suggestions will allow a compromise that is perhaps more financially viable by increasing its potential market. You are of course entitled to disagree with me. At the end of the day we all would like a new and better track system.

Edited January 1, 2014 by sub39h

[Bernard Lamb]

That I want pieces of track in preformed curves (of large radii) and straights to accompany flex track and points? I didn't think it was that complicated?

Seems to be making things very complicated to me.

It can only be of help in simple layouts.

What happens with a double track 90 or 180 degree turn?

What radius is needed for the inner and outer circuits?

Transitions?

A big point in favour of flexi track is that it can cope with such situations.

It is even possible with very little effort to adjust the sleeper spacing as required at the end of each length.

I would suggest that it is best to keep this thread on track until Joseph can get a clear picture of the basic range and type of items that are essential for a viable product launch.

Bernard

[Ron Ron Ron]

....I am interested by your suggestion of a rust-coloured rail. That would have to be achieved by coating all the rail with the end-user then cleaning off the top with a track rubber or similar. 

 

Rust coloured rail is less likely than the "pre-weathered look" that some track systems use.

 

During the course of this thread I keep referring back to the Tillig Elite range.

The Nickel Silver rail that is used in this track system is chemically darkened and does not have the bright shiny appearance of the rail used in for example, all of the Peco ranges.

Left on its own, some people would be happy to use this pre-weathered track as it comes "out of the box", but for those wanting to go on and paint their track, it forms a very good base from which to start from.

 

As for track rubbers....shouldn't they be kept well away from any track?

 

 

.

[autocoach]

To get to the OP's original question, and  as someone planning to rebuild a specific layout in the next 18 months I would need the following in 16.5 mm gauge with UK 4mm tie spacing:

 

Medium radius left and right of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Large radius left and right (possibly curvable) of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Flex Track possibly in 50cm lengths to ease postal shipping.

Bullhead Rail

Rail Joiners/Fishplates

(And SR/LSWR three bolt chairs on the track if possible.)

 

Nice to have would be:

LH Single Slip RH Single Slip of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Double Slip.of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

[Ron Ron Ron]

Irrespective of the exact style of track one thing I would like to see is set track-esque straights and wide (30"+) curves in various radii. This would serve two functions: easier track laying for those who are experienced model builders and also to prevent scaring off those who would have otherwise gone for set track or those (like me) who don't have masses of experience with flex track.

  

Explain please?

  

That I want pieces of track in preformed curves (of large radii) and straights to accompany flex track and points? I didn't think it was that complicated?

  

This not as some people appear to think, such an outlandish or unusual request.

 

Overseas there are finer scale track ranges available (similar to Peco's Code 75), which include some fixed radius curves and rigid straight sections, alongside flexitrack and a full range of points and crossings.

All in the same range, using the same sleeper bases and rail section.

i.e. the "set track" pieces are indistinguishable in appearance from the flexitrack.

The Tillig Elite range is one such range that has this.

 

 

 

Surely that's just creating another form of 'set track' to compete with the existing products!

Not really. It's not the same thing as "Set track", as most people in the UK understand it.

 

 

The whole premise of this thread is to see if we can find a way of producing an improved RTR product with greater realism (i.e. to British outline!) than the time-expired alternatives now in existence which will in turn enable railway modellers to bring their track work up the the level of today's high standards in all other aspects!

I Agree. However, some matching fixed pieces of track may be of benefit. They certainly won't detract from the look, if used appropriately.

 

 

I think there are two problems with this. The first is that fixed radius curves are just that and, even if of fairly generous radii, don't include a transition curve so will always look somewhat toylike. Laying curves with flexible track makes it far easier to include these.

While I totally agree with you on transition curves, I think it's fair to point out that an awful lot of modellers seem to omit transition curves from their layouts.

I'd even go as far as saying it's all too common to see this on some exhibition layouts.

 

 

...Non flexible straight track compatible with flexible track can be quite useful for things like end of board tracks simply because it is more rigid (except that it means using Code 100) .....

 

It isn't necessary to use Code 100.

e.g. The Tillig Elite fixed geometry items are still Code 83 and have exactly the same sleeper arrangements and appearance as the rest of the Elite range.

 

An analogy would be if Peco decided to introduce some rigid straight lengths, or fixed radius curves in their Code 75 Streamline range.

 

Remember these are optional extras, that modellers may, or may not choose to incorporate in their track plan.

One possible use could be in hidden areas, fiddle yards, or in the case of the visible part of the layout, alongside straight platform edges.

 

 

You make a fair point about transition curves. In regards to straight sections why could they not be cut to appropriate lengths? All it would take is for there to be, say, metre lengths of straight track similar to current flex track offerings that allow straight track to be laid easily. The track can be cut to length to suit like flex track is.

In principle, I don't think this is a bad suggestion, if it could be accommodated in a range.

If it was a question of priorities though, then Flexitrack woulds obviously come first.

 

 

I would like to point out I am by no means advocating a sort of fixed geometry like Hornby's track system. All I'm suggesting is that for there to be a few pieces of fixed shape to aid layout design.

Unfortunately, I think you have been misunderstood.

There is an apparent lack of awareness that this sort of option is already available in other track ranges in overseas markets.

 

 

Seems to be making things very complicated to me.

It can only be of help in simple layouts.

What happens with a double track 90 or 180 degree turn?

What radius is needed for the inner and outer circuits?

Transitions?

Bernard, with due respect, I think you have completely misunderstood.

sub39h is not suggesting "set track" as you understand it. This is quite different.

 

 

.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron

[billbedford]

To get to the OP's original question, and  as someone planning to rebuild a specific layout in the next 18 months I would need the following in 16.5 mm gauge with UK 4mm tie spacing:

 

Medium radius left and right of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Large radius left and right (possibly curvable) of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Flex Track possibly in 50cm lengths to ease postal shipping.

Bullhead Rail

Rail Joiners/Fishplates

(And SR/LSWR three bolt chairs on the track if possible.)

 

Nice to have would be:

LH Single Slip RH Single Slip of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Double Slip.of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

 

Flex Track is available from both SMP and C&L

 

Point components are available from C&L

 

Track bases for points are available from Timber Tracks

 

Don't know what DCC compatible pointwork means.

Edited January 1, 2014 by billbedford

[billbedford]

I'm really interested in how manufacturing methods may have changed since the 80-90's and how this is reflected in tooling costs.  It would be great if someone had some relevant experience in this field as I would appreciate knowing some current cost structures.  As always inflation has a huge part to play, so this may well offset improvements in manufacturing techniques.  The biggest cost factors in connectors were labour time and the incidental cost, depreciation of the tools and commercial overheads.  The material cost of a moulding and contacts were relatively small.

Basically three things have changed. First CAD and software generally, particularly for generating tool paths, then automation, and finally competition, see for instance this company 

[Dungrange]

I think straight track would be of benefit to beginners and those more experienced.

 

Whilst I am not convinced with the need to include large radii "set-track" style curves in any range, the inclusion of straight sections in scale 60' lengths (ie 240 mm) with sleepers spaced as per full size track panels with slightly reduced spacing and scale 12" sleepers at each end are potentially a good idea.  I would certainly buy a few of these, as they would make an excellent load on a rake of 'Salmon' track panel carriers (if anyone ever makes these Ready to Run I'll be happy).  I could also see a use for these adjacent to straight sections of platform, although in such a situation, lengths that are a multiple of 240 mm would probably be preferable.  However, I think any non-straight sections need to be flexi-track.

 

Regards

 

David

[autocoach]

Flex Track is available from both SMP and C&L

 

Point components are available from C&L

 

Track bases for points are available from Timber Tracks

 

Don't know what DCC compatible pointwork means.

Bill

 

You don't  understand the message of the topic at all.  This isn't for modellers who scratch or parts build their track at all. Find another topic.

Edited January 1, 2014 by autocoach

[billbedford]

Bill

 

You don't understand the message of the topic at all. This isn't for modellers who scratch or parts build their track at all. Find another topic.

So who exactly is it for then? and how many of them are there realistically?

Edited January 2, 2014 by billbedford

[Ron Ron Ron]

So who exactly is it for then? and how many are there realistically?

 

I had hoped that "spoiler" type posts had been deterred from this thread by now.

[frobisher]

Surely that's just creating another form of 'set track' to compete with the existing products!

No, not really. It would be a considerably better form of set track though, but at the moment, for the UK market there is no competing product. An awful lot of people do lay flexitrack to what is effectively standardised radii, dictated by commercial track laying aids, so why not go one stage further and sell pre curved track to those radii? The underside of the sleeper base could be marked out at interval angles to allow easy cutting and sub division of the track.

[Jeff Smith]

Peco has just introduced 0 gauge bullhead straight and curved track to match the existing flexitrack and turnouts.....!

Edited January 2, 2014 by Jeff Smith

[Bernard Lamb]

Peco has just introduced 0 gauge bullhead straight and curved track to match the existing flexitrack and turnouts.....!

Just as I suggested.

Get a viable range, see how it goes and then add to it.

This thread seems to be rapidly going down the drain.

It is probably time to heed the good words of Cyril and Mickey.

Bernard

[Godders]

Just as I suggested.

Get a viable range, see how it goes and then add to it.

This thread seems to be rapidly going down the drain.

It is probably time to heed the good words of Cyril and Mickey.

Bernard

 

Bernard et al, now is not the time to give up, now is the time to rally round the flag. We need to find a champion or group of champions to follow up themes with existing and new manufacturers.

 

While we all have an opinion on requirements and standards for new "British Looking" track there are contributors on here who are better placed in determining what is or is not practical. for example I think it is common knowledge that Martin Wynne is very "au fait" with track designs and standards. I am not suggesting that he should be the champion, heaven knows he has enough on his plate already. However, he may not be averse to an advisory position. I'm sure there must be other people on here who are very competent in various aspects, say injection moulding and able to look more objectively than the rest of us emotional lot.

 

One thing comes immediately to mind, are Peco completely entrepreneurial with their new 0 gauge products or are they in contact with say the G0G, are Peco, Hornby, Bachmann insular or is it that nobody actually communicates with them.

 

 

Godders

[billbedford]

To get to the OP's original question, and  as someone planning to rebuild a specific layout in the next 18 months I would need the following in 16.5 mm gauge with UK 4mm tie spacing:

 

Medium radius left and right of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Large radius left and right (possibly curvable) of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Flex Track possibly in 50cm lengths to ease postal shipping.

Bullhead Rail

Rail Joiners/Fishplates

(And SR/LSWR three bolt chairs on the track if possible.)

 

Nice to have would be:

LH Single Slip RH Single Slip of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

Double Slip.of DCC compatible design (whatever that means)

 

 

...and how much would you expect to pay for each of these?

[Budgie]

In regards to straight sections why could they not be cut to appropriate lengths? All it would take is for there to be, say, metre lengths of straight track similar to current flex track offerings that allow straight track to be laid easily. The track can be cut to length to suit like flex track is.

This already exists in code 100. It is Hornby R8090 semi-flexible track, which comes in 914 mm. (3 feet) lengths.

[Ron Ron Ron]

One thing comes immediately to mind, are Peco completely entrepreneurial with their new 0 gauge products or are they in contact with say the G0G, are Peco, Hornby, Bachmann insular or is it that nobody actually communicates with them?

Without knowing for sure, I strongly suspect that any communication, dialog or exchange of information and ideas, is very sporadic and largely incidental.

 

 

.......Britain has never had a representative body of modellers like the NMRA based on individual membership or MOROP based on national associations of model railway clubs and that's probably how we prefer it but the manufacturers, with nothing else to go on,  generally seem to work within their standards.

I've highlighted.... "...and that's probably how we prefer it".

Who acually prefers the lack of standards or an influential body to work in the interests of the hobby?

 

For me, the lack of an NMRA or MOROP type organisation, with sufficient influence and clout, is the single biggest problem with the railway modelling hobby in Britain. It's the lack of such representation that has held back the hobby in the UK in several respects and led to some of the problems , such as this 00 track issue, that continue to beset the hobby.

 

Instead we have a muddle of individual specialist groups representing particular niche branches of the hobby, some of whom have put their self interest ahead of the general good on occasion, but the largest segment (by far) of the hobby remains unrepresented.

That does not strike me as a healthy situation.

 

 

.

[billbedford]

I had hoped that "spoiler" type posts had been deterred from this thread by now.

 

Well, if you are expecting someone to invest shed loads of money in you pet schemes, then you should be prepared to answer their awkward question such as:

 

What is the potential market for this stuff?

 

Has anyone else looked at this market in the last 30 years? and what were their conclusions?

 

What would the competition's ( lets say Peco) reaction be to this venture?

[chris p bacon]

...and how much would you expect to pay for each of these?

The options you listed earlier when you replied to the post range from £40+ (point) to £100+ (slip) for Timber tracks kits.

 

If a RTL point was £41 it could be argued as better value, but what the poster could be after is consistent quality.

[Ron Ron Ron]

This already exists in code 100. It is Hornby R8090 semi-flexible track, which comes in 914 mm. (3 feet) lengths.

 

Indeed it does. Set Track type track with flexitrack available as well.

 

However, as I pointed out earlier, there are also "finer" track ranges, which are not Set Track, that also include the option of rigid sections (curves and straight sections) alongside their flexitrack, points and crossings.

 

 

.

[chris p bacon]

Well, if you are expecting someone to invest shed loads of money in you pet schemes, then you should be prepared to answer their awkward question such as:

I didn't realise you were going to be an investor.

[billbedford]

The options you listed earlier when you replied to the post range from £40+ (point) to £100+ (slip) for Timber tracks kits.

 

If a RTL point was £41 it could be argued as better value, but what the poster could be after is consistent quality.

 

...so more expensitive than either Markways or Borgrail?

Edited January 2, 2014 by billbedford

[ThaneofFife]

I had a look at the Peco site, and the only code 75 concrete bearer points listed there so far are the right- and left-hand medium-radius points. I assume they are introducing them gradually.

I dont think the super long turnouts are out but the medium concrete turnouts in code 75 came out a few years ago now - I would say about 2 to 3 years back at least.  A medium radius always seemed an odd choice to me when it suited the large radius IMO. 

That said how many turnouts of the prototype sit on concrete?

you see lots of running line trackwork in concrete then when it gets to a point the sleepers are wooden.......is concrete the red herring to satisfy those that want their unweathered concrete track to look uniform between flexi and pointwork perhaps?  anyway I did originally say that this was digressing from OT. 

Flex Track is available from both SMP and C&L

 

Point components are available from C&L

 

Track bases for points are available from Timber Tracks

 

Don't know what DCC compatible pointwork means.

Those are not ready to lay are they Bill?  The thread title relates to ready to plant/ready to lay.

Whilst I am not convinced with the need to include large radii "set-track" style curves in any range, the inclusion of straight sections in scale 60' lengths (ie 240 mm) with sleepers spaced as per full size track panels with slightly reduced spacing and scale 12" sleepers at each end are potentially a good idea.  I would certainly buy a few of these, as they would make an excellent load on a rake of 'Salmon' track panel carriers (if anyone ever makes these Read

 

i was about to suggest the scale 60ft track lengths myself so I have to agree. 

 

Thing is do you want your 60ft length to be straight as an arrow fixed or slightly flexible like a Tillig point for mild curvatures?  you can sail very close to the argument that you might as well buy a yard length and chop it down to give yourself two lengths of 60ft but you get a lot of waste with the bit that are leftover and then you may still have to make the yard length up yourself unless your happy with a length of PECO. 

 

For older era layouts say up to about 1990, you get the added play factor of the coach wheels running over the joints to give that familiar noise we still get on some preserved railways today in bogie coaches (clickety clack) but has largely vanished from the modern scene.  Its a nice noise and with scale 60ft lengths around any layout running fast passenger services it would sound very cool.